Movie Reviews

Has its issues, but is irresistably charming and sweet...

M. Burns | Columbus, Ohio | 07/15/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"A noted critic is famous for saying that the worst movie the Marx brothers could ever make would still be better than most films out there. That's how director Steven Spielberg is these days - though not at the top of his critical or popular peak, he continues to make movies that - though not shoo-ins for a Top 100 list - are 'good.' Case in point: The Terminal is the worst movie he's made in a decade, and I still had a pretty good time. If anything, The Terminal (like Young Adam with Ewan McGregor) proves that an immensely talented star and American Everyman like Tom Hanks can rise above just about anything and make it worthwhile. His plight as the immigrant stuck in the airport terminal is alternately hilarious, touching, and so incredibly nuanced that you do - believe me on this - forget it's a megastar playing the role. Hanks plays the role with a Chaplinesque grace that compliments everyone around him, especially airport workers Diego Luna, Kumar Pallana, and Zoe Saldana. And the movie works...to a point. What I found most shocking about Terminal is that it really comes apart with the introduction of the plot strand involing Catherine Zeta-Jones' flight attendant. Her Amelia is a schlocky, As the World Turns-inspired piece of character writing that is too often contrived and sappy. And unconvincing at that - quite a feat considering Zeta-Jones is the most beautiful woman on the planet. I don't really know what was going through the minds of writers Sacha Gervasi and Jeff Nathanson when they decided to throw this movie away in its final act. This movie has so much wistful charm it's easy to throw off the 'Amelia situation' and succeed, but the plot spotlight hits her too much near the end; and it gets so sappy. Ebert hails Spielberg as an American director who can make audiences cry without manipulation, but The Terminal becomes too noodging as one act of kindness after another guides the movie to its close. And I admired the film's aim for simplicity in its final tie of the plot strands (yes, this movie turns on a peanut canister), but as the credits rolled, I felt a vague feeling of dissatisfaction (a la A.I.). It's difficult to really judge a movie like this. The charm, heart, and wit displayed in most of it is enough to keep it afloat despite some serious missteps, but let me take a minute and be unfair. This is a director who has helmed some of the most enduring works of American film...so why didn't he notice some the soap opera-ish writing and cheesiness that pops up too often in this film? I look toward the movie's faults more because I know they could have been fixed: Amelia could have been more believable, the movie could have left out some "awww" moments at the end, and it could have trimmed off about 10 minutes. Had The Terminal taken the time to match the perfection of the film's first half, it would have been one of the best movies of the year. I had such a great time for a while, and wanted to follow it to even greater things. Even now, though, it's a warm, engaging little comedy stuck in an overlong melodrama's body. GRADE: B"

Kafka as Kartoon!

Grady Harp | Los Angeles, CA United States | 06/27/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"THE TERMINAL is a difficult movie to score - it is a highly entertaining film, very well crafted, with a dazzling set of actors in the leads and comprimario roles, and has a nice take on the microcosm of the airport as the confines of the universe - and for all the feel-good Steven Spielbergisms it engenders, there is still something that makes it not quite score a full five. The set is fantastic and very well used. The line between comedy and absurdity and tragedy is pretty well delineated, but there are a few too many bleeps in the continuity of the tale (and the characters) to overlook.
Tom Hanks proves again that he can create a memorable character as Viktor, a simple man with a mission who finds himself entrapped in JKF airport by an accidental loss of his country to villainous overthrow (beginning to catch the overtones Spielberg drives home?) and is kept 'prisoner' by the upwardly mobile Customs agent Frank Dixon ( played well by Stanley Tucci). At first Viktor speaks no English (tremendously comic scenes of how one reacts to a language that is completely foreign) and so must survive his prolonged stay in the airport by eating free crackers-and-mustard/catsup sandwiches, sleeping in the reconstruction site of the airport, 'bathing' in the restrooms (get it?). Slowly he encounters airport workers who come to his aid by mutual coercion (Gupta - the hilarious Indian custodian played exceptionally well by Kumar Pallana, Enrique who transports food and is lovable in the capable hands of Diego Luna, even the security clerk Torres played by Zoe Saldana and Mulroy played by Chi McBride), survives, suddenly able to speak a LOT of English (though with a delightfully consistent Slavic accent) he falls for a stewardess (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who has spent her life waiting for the right man to come along. The ending looks like it is going to be right out THE MUSIC MAN until the film takes a syrupy turn and ends not with a bang but with a whimper. There is nothing not to like about this warm movie, it is just a little too Hollywood. But all is forgiven if you can just watch it for 1) the performances and 2) for the simple quiet message that we all are dependent on each other in this far too busy, suspicious, and alien world. Good timing, Mr. Spielberg."

Have a heart

Film Fan | NY, NY | 10/31/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Okay---this review goes out to all those who have chosen to severly bad mouth this movie to death. I, like many people understand that some movies can be filled with too much sappy "mush" that it's hard to handle, but I think those who have chosen to be so harsh on this film are doing so somewhat because they have become so accustomed in recent to years to the highly dramatic (i.e. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan) or the big blockbusters (i.e. Jurassic Park, Minority Report, A.I.) that we have come to expect from Steven Spielberg. If this were any other director's film, say, Nora Ephron, Robert Zemekis or Rob Reiner, then we would be more judging based upon their previous films that are more of this gendre. Can't we all just accept a cute, touching movie as it is? Does it have to have a deep politcal or moral message to it? I for one had a fun time watching it and as always Tom Hanks was his normal, charming self which only goes to show why he's known as the nicest guy in Hollywood. What I also liked about it was that it wasn't the typical Spielberg piece. Personally, I've been growing kind of tired of the stylized directors who always have this particular look to their films that after a while causes you to get tired of going to see them because you know what to expect. Even the score was a surprise, which for John Williams is a big accomplishment, since before Catch Me If You Can has always had the same sound to it. You could literally connect all the scores together back to back and they would all sound like they were from the same film. I think the man literally sleeps with a French horn underneath his pillow. So for all those who have such distaste for this film, I'd lay off the directors that a good amount of the time turn out some wonderful, quality movies and turn your attentions to films that I still can't understand got made (i.e. Kangaroo Jack, A Cinderella Story, The Hulk, Hollywood Homocide, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen)."

Hanks is brilliant

Groundskeeper Willie | 06/14/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

""The Terminal" has a lot going for it.It has the crowd-drawing director, actor, actress, and a plot that would make anyone say, "how in the world?"And for the most part, it lives up to it. Hanks is absolutely amazing in his role. I forgot it was him for the majority of the film, and though that should be par for the acting course, it's not for many actors. He loses himself as Victor, and he's not afraid to lay it out for his character. He changed his walk, stance, everything for Victor. It's the complete package, and Hanks never misses a beat.Spielberg delivers what you expect: excellent directing. There are so many little touches in the background during the entire film that you sit and smile when you catch it, and when a scene comes off as completely coherent, you realize there was so much reinforcing what had occurred. The typical (of recent films anyway) Spielberg lighting comes into play frequently, and it makes for a lovely film. He got such a marvelous performance from Hanks and the rest of the cast...must be a really famous director, eh?Catherine Zeta-Jones had a smaller role than I expected, but she still pulled a decent performance. I believed her, for the most part. A couple scenes, no, but for the most part.The supporting cast of Victor's airport friends is marvelous. The chemistry between them and Hanks is great, even with Hanks not speaking English very well. I really like those characters, and the actors pulled it off brilliantly.The script is good, dialogue believable, and story followable and lovable.My only complaint with the film is that it seemed a little drawn out at points. It's about 2 hours, and I thought it could've been shorter. But the subplots keep you entertained, and you really grow to appreciate the characters. There are some fascinating character developments and studies in this one. You'll want to think when it's over, though you may not know what about."The Terminal" may not be what you expect; but it is a good film, with comedy throughout and some nice dramatic moments too. I recommend it. Enjoy Hanks' brilliant work!"

Could have been 45 minutes shorter...

Diane Moore | 07/27/2004

(3 out of 5 stars)

"...and it would have been fine.

Tom Hanks is played by Viktor Navorski, who is stuck in JFK airport because his country is at war and the officials won't let him go back to his native country, but at the same time, they won't let him step one foot into New York City. The movie was inspired by the story of Merhan Nasseri, an Iranian refugee.

Viktor basically starts living at JFK, in Gate 67 carrying around a peanut can filled with secrets, that everyone seems curious about. After he accidentally lost his food vouchers, he finds creative ways of making money to eat. When that fails, his friend Enrique bribes him with food, while having him do favors for him---giving love notes and etc to Officer Torres, a woman who works at the airport.

Viktor quickly makes friends with the staff and also keeps seeing the same flight attendant Amelia, played by Catherine Zeta Jones. In my opinion, her character was not needed. I know that Hollywood movies seem to put a "romantic interest" in the movie to liven it up, but this movie didn't need that. The premise was interesting on it's own.

Stanley Tucci plays a great villian. Someone who tries to get rid of Viktor, and have someone else "deal with him." Viktor, of course, is too smart for him. Especially since he learned English so quickly. (I'm not sure how realistic that was.)

As the ending nears, some other scenes were questionable, the type that would have warmed my heart when I was thirteen years old, but makes me squirm in my seat today. The cheesiness factor was high.

But, I believe that the best part of this film was Tom Hanks. He was good as a frustrating non English-speaking foreigner who answered "yes" to every question asked. He was also lovable. You did want to root for him.

Unfortunately, I straddle the fence on this one. It was good enough for me to stay and watch, but, as time passed, I started to wonder, "Why does it have to be so long?"